On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) and former New York Mayor Rudi Juliani, trade measures, each grabbing the lead in two states.

Obama's high-profile apparently affects regular political consumers more than everyday voters. His lower-than-expected showing in some polls has been chalked up to lack of name recognition, but the voters in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire certainly aren't political naifs, though Nevada has only recently begun to attract the attention the other three have.

That said, Obama's best performance in the American Research Group polls is in the state he has spent the most time in recently, New Hampshire.

Currently Clinton and Edwards are lying low. If Obama does decide to run, he could well make up any differential in name recognition with a year of steady campaigning. As a potential campaign wears on, his novelty will wear, but with careful planning he is guaranteed to have oodles of free press.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Our mothers always tell us to do well by others. It's an implicit knowledge of fate, but delivered without the hokey "vision thing." In the end, the rubber band often does snap back in our face.

Bonilla's stunning defeat raises a question Republicans cannot dismiss: Could President Bush's home state go blue? Pundits chalked up Texas Gov. Rick Perry's (R) 38-percent win last month to the weird four-way race he was forced to endure. But if Texas Hispanics, the fastest growing segment of the state's population, are bolting the GOP over immigration, that could have big statewide and national ramifications.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Jeeez....just when you think Broadway productions designed to wring the last few dollars out of a formerly authentic idea had hit bottom, along comes this: Like a Rolling Stone.

Someone better check on Dylan, this might have killed him.

It's like every thing wrong with modern theater rolled into one package. It's like the twisted love child of some forbidden rendezvous between Andrew lloyd Weber and Disney's marketing department.

Of course they'll probably rake in some dough and critical praise, "It's like Moving Out, but more authentic 'cause its Dylan!" Elton John's work almost works with the schlock treatment, but this is somewhere in the region around Mr. Spock and the "Ballad of Bilbo Baggins."

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Juxtaposing Baker in 1994 with his efforts on the Iraq Study Group, The National Review's Michael Rubin believes Baker has slipped his moorings.

Comparing Baker 1994 to Baker 2006 is illuminating. Juxtaposition of his attitudes toward Iranian moderates, toward Syrian intentions in Lebanon, and his recognition of the cynicism with which Arab states use the Palestinian conflict show how deeply Baker's 2006 prescriptions run counter to reality. Baker then was a statesman; Baker now is Jimmy Carter.

It should be noted that the ISG recommendations were not Baker's alone, but a compromise proposal. One that appears to satisfy no one.

After reading the 1994 Middle East Quarterly article Rubin cited, I just don't know if I see where it is that there is a great divergence between the Baker of today and 1994. His comments on Iran, Syria and the role of the Palestine-Israel conflict aren't particularly hawkish or bellicose in 1994. In fact, after watching Baker on Charlie Rose and other shows months before the ISG report was to be released (at the time, Baker was hocking his book, Work Hard, Study...and Keep Out of Politics!) and his attitude towards the complimentary and competing roles of diplomacy and force in the Middle East were in keeping with his reflections in the article.

In fact, some of the quotes in the 1994 article could have come from a Carter talk.

"I fear the current wave of radical Islamism is going to be a continuing problem as long as poverty and discontent exist in that part of the world."

"Obviously, the idea of reaching out to moderates in Iran was a nonstarter. On the other hand, for the full four years that I was there [at the Department of State], we were quite prepared to sit down at an official level with the government of Iran--there's no surprise about that--provided they understood the first topic on the agenda would be their support for state-sponsored terrorism. We were unwilling during our four years to have any of this back-channeling stuff. So, those are two different situations."

"The Arabs no longer present as much of a unified front as they used to, for three reasons: the collapse of communism and the end of the East-West conflict; the defeat of Arab rejectionism and radical Palestinian elements in the Gulf War; andÿthe fact that Israel has now reached an agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization. And you've got Gaza-Jericho first there and -- and that deal was made without consultation with -- with some of the Arab states. So, the states have less of a reason to condition their positions on whatever will result in the permanent status talks. As a result, they're less committed to the idea of a Palestinian state. I suppose they will still give lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state, but the Syrians particularly feel free to reach an agreement with Israel on peace without regard to what happens on the Palestinian track.

At least with respect to the countries around Israel, you're not going to get real economic development until there's peace. And when you do get peace, boy, there's going to be tremendous development and economic activity in so many different ways in those countries--in Israel herself and in the countries bordering Israel. And I'm optimistic that you can get peace."

"Now, we broke the mold of long-established U.S. policy by getting the Russians to cosponsor the Madrid peace talks. That was a worthwhile effort, and it was one way we were able to get Syria to say, yes, she'd come to the table. You're not going to have peace until people talk to each other."

Bakers recent comments have been in line with much of these early statements.

What stands out in particular are his comments on keeping the table clear for state-level talks with Iran and his explanation that the direct negotiations between Israel and the PLO over the Gaza-Jehrico First agreement freed many of the other actors to make their own path. Baker also points to international negotiations that brought Syria to the negotiating table.

Today the ISG is calling for direct talks with Iran and Syria, both of whom he acknowledged were dangerous elements then as well as they are today. The ISG also points to the need to address the specter of Palestine that lingers over any debate about the middle east.

In a general topic-by-topic comparison, it is hard to view much light between the Baker of 1994 and today. Perhaps, instead, Baker's advice is not what the parties want to hear.

It's an ugly rumor, but it's spreading like wildfire: Karl Rove has lost his touch. In an amazing betrayal within a family where top political aide Rove is royalty, Bushies have been sneering at his pre-election happy talk that the gop would keep the Senate and take a slight hit in the House, both soon to be run by Democrats. And now we learn that President Bush really believed the GOP was safe, too. On the day before the elections, he asked embattled House gop leader Dennis Hastert to run for speaker again so he could guide the White House's agenda in Congress.

"In the November survey however, those who thought she'd have as good a chance as any climbed 14 points to 60 percent, and those worried that she couldn't win dropped 13 points to 36 percent. There was no significant difference between men and women or among those most likely to vote in a Democratic presidential primary."

Monday, December 04, 2006

Will it be Obama? His meteoric rise to the top seemed a bit too rapid, his star too bright, to take a shot at the biggest game in town; President. Yet he's making the rounds, talking the talk and looking the part.

The two sides of an extremely bad coin. Both are from Kevin Drum, and both illustrate the level we have reached in Iraq.

The so-called, "80%' or "tilt" strategy advocates the United States declare reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite impossible and throw our support behind the Shiite majority. It's a possible path the administration discussed recently. While it does seem like a faster method of settling a violent and bloody fight, it has enormous costs of its own. Drum explains two possible types of fallout.

It's hard to believe that anyone is taking this seriously. If reconciliation with the Sunni minority is impossible — and it probably is — then we should withdraw and let the Shiite majority take over. The result would be bloody, but at least we wouldn't be involved. The alternative being mooted here would put us directly on the Shiite side, and we'd be viewed as actively cooperating with a massacre of the Sunni minority no matter how hard we protested otherwise. It's hard to imagine a more disastrous end to a disastrous war.

B. The Saudi regime (which is Sunni) decides to make it very, very hard for the U.S. In an op-ed in the Washington Post an advisor to the Saudi government laid out their potential reaction to a U.S. backed Shiite majority: funding, arms and logistic support to Sunni military leaders in Iraq. He also tosses in the threat of action on the oil front; causing the price to tank. A direct attack on both Iran and U.S. oil companies. Drum speculates this is what Vice President Cheney was summoned to Riyahd for.

Bolton's departure from the diplomatic stage is not unsurprising. Not only had the incoming Democratic majority in the Senate already begun responding to questions with, "Bolton who?", but the Republican controlled Congress in 2005 refused to certify him, resulting in Bush sides-stepping the process and making Bolton a recess appointment during the Congressional break in August of 2005.

Democrats have loudly and consistently opposed Bolton who they described the long-time critic of the United Nations as heavy-handed in his treatment of staff and colleagues, and anti-diplomatic in his dealings with agencies and governments.

President Bush renominated Bolton for ambassador in the days following the November election. It was a sign, Democrat said, that Bush's promises of bipartisanship were hollow.

Yet given the opposition on both sides of the isle, it may be one thing there actually was some agreement on.

Friday, December 01, 2006

The two sides of an extremely bad coin. Both are from Kevin Drum, and both illustrate the level we have reached in Iraq.

The so-called, "80%' or "tilt" strategy advocates the United States declare reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite impossible and throw our support behind the Shiite majority. It's a possible path the administration discussed recently. While it does seem like a faster method of settling a violent and bloody fight, it has enormous costs of its own. Drum explains two possible types of fallout.

It's hard to believe that anyone is taking this seriously. If reconciliation with the Sunni minority is impossible — and it probably is — then we should withdraw and let the Shiite majority take over. The result would be bloody, but at least we wouldn't be involved. The alternative being mooted here would put us directly on the Shiite side, and we'd be viewed as actively cooperating with a massacre of the Sunni minority no matter how hard we protested otherwise. It's hard to imagine a more disastrous end to a disastrous war.